I am, as an Engineer i am truly facinated to find out how that steel melted in an office fire, losing its strength and buckling i can understand but literally melting into molten metal?
Now that is pretty fishy.

Never mind the whole WTC Building 7 just collapsed and it was hit by nothing. Only thing that happened to it was it caught on fire, and if I am correct it was constructed out of the same graded materials that the towers were.

I don't care who the fuck was responsible. No one is for certainly saying Bush did 9/11, or a rogue agent, the CIA, Mossad, or a join operation. Who the fuck knows who did. The fact is - is shit does not add up in terms of science and logic - same thing as to why (I can't remember the exact percentage) but over half of Americans believe JFK's assassination had CIA and Mafia involvement, as well as LBJ.

It is perfectly OK for Americans to question the authenticity of the 9/11 reports as the U.S. government has been known to pull outrageous bullshit in foreign lands and historically domestically.

The only thing WTC7 came in contact with was fire and debris. It was never actually "hit" with anything besides that. As for the article, yeah, a lot of that does make sense - I already knew all of that though.

Falling pieces of building and structural failure of buildings also make a boom sound.
If they wanted to stage a terrorist attack, they'd have had "terrorists" smuggle bombs in and blow the load bearing columns at the bottom, then used that as an excuse. They wouldn't have used both a plane AND explosives, then blame it all on the plane, since that would raise questions, and questions aren't good if you're trying to cover something up.

Have you any idea the force behind heating and crumpling steel? Hit one end of a steel rod with a hammer while holding the other end. It'll fucking hurt. Now add the heat of the fire and the cooling of high altitude winds. Cool a piece of red hot steel in water while holding a already cool end. You can feel a sort of cracking or popping.
Multiply that by 100,000.
And put it into an enclosed area.
Yeah, there's going to be a lot of pressure displacement throughout the building, possible shockwave.

The gov wouldn't have placed explosives at the bottom, and even if they did, they would have been crude, homemade explosives with homemade thermite, and the gov would have blamed it on the terrorists too.

If there was iron rust present, the force of the plane could easily combine aluminum with the iron oxide, making thermite, which not only melts steel but eats through that shit like a fatty at a donut buffet.

No iron was used, the steel was laced in Cemented carbide to stop rust and help retain the strength of the steel in the case of a fire (the cemented carbide coating would last maybe 45 mins in an office fire before degrading and allowing the steel to bend/buckle)

Just sayin from an engineering standpoint the whole thing surrounding 9/11 is fucky, i have talked to countless engineers that all have the same opinion.

Jet fuel, or Kerosene (thats what jet fuel is) burns at around 700 degree C actually, the office fire burning was hotter than the jet fuel lol.
You are right though the steel would have buckled and bent after an hour or so and the tops of the buildings should have fallen off to the side.
Should not have collapsed on themselves and there should not have been molten metal in the underground car parks weeks later.

I am, as an Engineer i am truly facinated to find out how that steel melted in an office fire, losing its strength and buckling i can understand but literally melting into molten metal?
Now that is pretty fishy.

Never mind the whole WTC Building 7 just collapsed and it was hit by nothing. Only thing that happened to it was it caught on fire, and if I am correct it was constructed out of the same graded materials that the towers were.

I don't care who the fuck was responsible. No one is for certainly saying Bush did 9/11, or a rogue agent, the CIA, Mossad, or a join operation. Who the fuck knows who did. The fact is - is shit does not add up in terms of science and logic - same thing as to why (I can't remember the exact percentage) but over half of Americans believe JFK's assassination had CIA and Mafia involvement, as well as LBJ.

It is perfectly OK for Americans to question the authenticity of the 9/11 reports as the U.S. government has been known to pull outrageous bullshit in foreign lands and historically domestically.

The only thing WTC7 came in contact with was fire and debris. It was never actually "hit" with anything besides that. As for the article, yeah, a lot of that does make sense - I already knew all of that though.

Falling pieces of building and structural failure of buildings also make a boom sound.
If they wanted to stage a terrorist attack, they'd have had "terrorists" smuggle bombs in and blow the load bearing columns at the bottom, then used that as an excuse. They wouldn't have used both a plane AND explosives, then blame it all on the plane, since that would raise questions, and questions aren't good if you're trying to cover something up.

Have you any idea the force behind heating and crumpling steel? Hit one end of a steel rod with a hammer while holding the other end. It'll fucking hurt. Now add the heat of the fire and the cooling of high altitude winds. Cool a piece of red hot steel in water while holding a already cool end. You can feel a sort of cracking or popping.
Multiply that by 100,000.
And put it into an enclosed area.
Yeah, there's going to be a lot of pressure displacement throughout the building, possible shockwave.

The gov wouldn't have placed explosives at the bottom, and even if they did, they would have been crude, homemade explosives with homemade thermite, and the gov would have blamed it on the terrorists too.